David,
We have made use of splitting an otherwise VERY long pqact file into
smaller ones, mostly grouped on feedtype. We have a pqact.conduit, a
pqact.nexrad, a pqact.exp, etc.
As Tom said, "It is much better to run several pqacts as long as ..." We
also find the benefit of reducing debugging time when something has gone
wrong with a pqact action and we know which smaller pqact file was
updated most recently! This way also seems easier, at least, to us.
Donna
David Knight wrote:
I have a more basic question. Is it more efficient to
run a single pqact with a large/long/complicated pqact.conf,
or, is it better to run several pqact each with a more
simple pqact.conf? Each pqact.conf might access the same
product and do something different with it, or each
pqact.conf might handle particular groups of products.
(for example you could have a pqact.conf for each software package,
or, you could have a pqact.conf for every feedtype.)
If one were to split up and reorginise their pqact.conf
file would there be a computational advantage or disadvantage
to either method?
I'm just wondering is there a good reason for splitting
up a pqact.conf into several smaller files, or would
splitting it by inbeded comments serve just as well?
David
_______________________________________________
ldm-users mailing list
ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For list information or to unsubscribe, visit: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
--
Donna Cote
Senior Research Associate
The Academy for Advanced Telecommunications and Learning Technologies
Texas A&M University
3139 TAMU
College Station, Texas 77843-3139
Office: (979) 862-3982
Cell: (979) 324-3549
Fax: (979) 862-3983
